Judgment D.K.Jain, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short, "the Tribunal"), has referred, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), the following question for the opinion of this Court. The reference arises out of I. T. A. No. 1246 and 1285/Chandi of 1989, pertaining to the assessment year 1985-86 : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law to hold that car repairs and insurance are to be excluded for the purpose of working out disallowance under Section 37(3B) ?" 2. Briefly stated, the material facts are as follows : 3. The respondent-assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of iron and steel products. During the course of assessment proceedings for the aforementioned assessment year, the Income-tax Officer noticed that in its total income, the assessee had added Rs. 32,444 as income being the amount of disallowance under Section 37(3B) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer was, however, of the view that the expenses added back for the purpose of the said disallowance were far less than the actual expenses incurred by the assessee. Accordingly, he recomputed the disallowance under the said provision, which included the disallowance of the expenditure incurred by the assessee on the repairs and insurance of cars owned by the assessee-company and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (for short, "the Commissioner"), who took the view that repairs and insurance, of car did not fall within the mischief of Section 37(3B) of the Act and the assessee was entitled to claim its deduction under Section 31 of the Act. 5. Not being satisfied with the view taken by the Commissioner, the Revenue as well as the assessee took the matter in further appeal to the Tribunal. Both the appeals were allowed partly by the Tribunal. 6. On the Revenues moving an application under Section 256(1) of the Act, the aforementioned question has been referred for the opinion of this Court. 7. We have heard Mr. D. S. Patwalia, learned Counsel for the Revenue, and Mr. S. K. Mukhi, learned Counsel for the assessee. 8. It is submitted by Mr. 6. On the Revenues moving an application under Section 256(1) of the Act, the aforementioned question has been referred for the opinion of this Court. 7. We have heard Mr. D. S. Patwalia, learned Counsel for the Revenue, and Mr. S. K. Mukhi, learned Counsel for the assessee. 8. It is submitted by Mr. Patwalia, that Section 37(3A) of the Act, being a substantive provision, it had an overriding effect on all the provisions in the Act pertaining to allowance of expenditure in computing the income from business and profession and the provisions contained in the said Section specifically cover all kinds of expenses incurred in connection with the maintenance of motor cars. It is asserted that the non obstinate clause in Section 37(3A), would include the provisions contained in Section 31 of the Act and, therefore, the provisions of Section 37(3A) are clearly attracted in the case of the assessee. learned Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, has urged that the expenditure allowable under Section 31 of the Act cannot be disallowed under any of the provisions of the Sub- sections of Section 37 of the Act. 9. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of law. Section 31 of the Act reads as follows : "Repairs and insurance of machinery, plant and furniture.--In respect of repairs and insurance of machinery, plant or furniture used for the purposes of the business or profession, the following deduction shall be allowed-- (i) the amount paid on account of current repairs thereto ; (ii) the amount of any premium paid in respect of insurance against risk of damage or destruction thereof." 10. Section 37 of the Act reads as follows : "Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in Sections 30 to 36 and Section 80VV and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head Profits and gains of business or profession." 11. Section 37(3A) and (3B) of the Act is in the following terms : " Section 37(3A) - Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub- section (1), where the expenditure or, as the case may be, the aggregate expenditure incurred by an assessee on any one or more of the items specified in Sub- section (3B) exceeds one hundred thousand rupees, 20 per cent, of such excess shall not be allowed as deduction in computing the income chargeable under the head Profits and gains of business or profession. Section 37(3B) : The expenditure referred to in Sub- section (3A) is that incurred on-- (i) advertisement, publicity and sales promotion ; or (ii) running and maintenance of aircraft and motor cars ; or (iii) payments made to hotels." 12. From a bare reading of the aforenoted provisions, it is clear that the expenditure incurred on repairs and insurance of the plant used for the purposes of the business, falls within the ambit of Section 31. The word "plant" is defined in Section 43(3) of the Act and it includes vehicles. Section 37 of the Act is a general provision regarding the expenditure not covered by Sections 30 to 36 and 80VV of the Act and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee. It is, thus, clear that Section 37(1) of the Act is intended to take within its ambit only such expenditure which is not covered by Sections 30 to 36 and Section SOW of the Act. Section 37(3A) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub- section (1), 20 per cent, of any expenditure in excess of Rs. 1 lakh incurred by an assessee in respect of one or more of the items specified in Sub- section (3B) shall not be allowed as deduction in computing the business income. Obviously, Sub- section (3A) of the Act would apply only to those items of expenditure which are covered by Sub- section (3B) of the Act. Clause (ii) in Sub- section (3B) specifies one such expenditure as running and maintenance of aircrafts and motor cars. 13. From a conjoint reading of the aforementioned provisions, it is clear that the expenditure on repairs and insurance of plant and machinery contemplated under Section 31 of the Act is entirely different from the expenditure towards maintenance of motor cars contemplated in Section 37(3B) of the Act. 13. From a conjoint reading of the aforementioned provisions, it is clear that the expenditure on repairs and insurance of plant and machinery contemplated under Section 31 of the Act is entirely different from the expenditure towards maintenance of motor cars contemplated in Section 37(3B) of the Act. This was so held by-the Gauhati High court in George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. V/s. CIT, 1997 223 ITR 203. In the said decision, it was held that the expenditure on repairs dealt with in Section 31 of the Act is entirely different from the expenditure on maintenance covered by Sub- sections (3A) and (3B) of Section 37 of the Act. We are in respectful agreement with the said view. 14. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the items of expenditure covered by Sections 30 to 36 of the Act are different from the items of expenditure covered in the Sub- sections of Section 37 of the Act and therefore, the non obstante clause in Section 37(3A) of the Act would apply only to those of the items which are covered by Section 37(1) of the Act. This cannot have any overriding effect in respect of the other provisions pertaining to the allowances of expenditure under Sections 30 to 36 of the Act. Support for this view is lent by the decisions of the Kerala High Court in CIT V/s. Travancore Cements Ltd., 1999 240 ITR 816 the Calcutta High Court in CIT V/s. Price Waterhouse, 1994 207 ITR 564 and the Bombay High Court in CIT V/s. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No. 1), 1989 177 ITR 124 (No. 1). 15. For the foregoing reasons, the references are answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will, however, be no order as to costs.